It seems to me that a church should be the most vocal on issues that touch the spiritual as well as the issue of justice, and it seems to me that Eminent Domain is one such issue. There are politicians who want to reform the use of eminent domain, especially since the incomprehensible Kelo decision- the one in which the Supreme Court accepted the state of Connecticutt's definition of public good as "That guy can pay more property taxes than this guy- so take the property and give it to the deeper pockets!" The problem is that politicians are only investigating getting the beleagured property owners a bigger settlement.
But some people don't want to sell at any price- they planned to die in the home they spent their life in, raised their family in. Is the state willing to wait for an 84 year old with lung cancer to die first? No- throw the bum out, build the luxury condos posthaste! See http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060130/COLUMNISTS15/601300358/-1/register01 and also http://www.njeminentdomain.com/
It seems to me these would be great cases for the UUA to champion- it's a purely spiritual issue, valueing the last years of life over any amount of money- it's helping the little guy against the big dollar developers and the politicians who want to make their reputations on the backs of the people they're supposed to be serving. It even addresses one of our PPs- is this Democratic process? If we don't have the right to say no, doesn't that make us mere subjects, rather than citizens?
So WILL the UUA take this issue on? I make my prediction: No, never.
6 comments:
Joel wrote:
-snip-
"It seems to me these would be great cases for the UUA to champion- it's a purely spiritual issue, valueing the last years of life over any amount of money- it's helping the little guy against the big dollar developers and the politicians who want to make their reputations on the backs of the people they're supposed to be serving. It even addresses one of our PPs- is this Democratic process? If we don't have the right to say no, doesn't that make us mere subjects, rather than citizens?
So WILL the UUA take this issue on? I make my prediction: No, never."
Joel,
The only way our Unitarian Universalist Association can take on the issue is using the currently published procedures that rely on the voices and votes of congregational delegates.
The current social justice issue process can be found here:
Social Witness Process Overview
http://www.uua.org/csw/participate%28speakout%29.html
I suspect that the ideal way to address eminent domain issues would be using the Action of Immediate Witness (AIW) process at General Assembly.
Here's the applicable info on how AIWs are passed by General Assemblies:
AIW petitions must be signed by a minimum of 150 delegates from at least 25 societies in at least five districts. (CSW provides a place where delegates may gather signatures.) An advocate for each AIW may speak for two minutes at the plenary before the delegates vote whether to consider each one.
Up to six GA Actions of Immediate Witness may be considered by the GA. CSW conducts a mini-assembly where delegates may discuss the AIWs admitted to the Agenda and propose written amendments. CSW then prepares a revised draft, and makes available to the GA any amendments it has not incorporated.
General Assembly Actions of Immediate Witness do not carry the weight of Statements of Conscience because they are considered only by the General Assembly delegates and not by all societies and districts.
More complete information about AIWs may be found in Bylaw Section 4.16(b).
Personally speaking, I haven't heard any liberal or conservative Unitarian Univeralists speak in favor of the eminent domain cases where the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of taking property for private ventures. The problem for the UUA is I'm not sure if we've taken a stand against this use of eminent domain through congregational delegate voting.
Would you want our UUA staff acting on this issue without any congregational authorization whatsoever?
No, but it seems to me they do it anyway. I don't recall any such process being used before the official statement of opposition to Justice Alito, for example- they used a derived authority from a previous GA vote on the general subject of social justice to do it.
What I would like to see is a procedure for submitting such action requests that doesn't involve attending multiple GAs to get enough signatures- not all of can afford to do that. The Supreme Court has a process for direct appeal from a citizen; the UUA should have such a procedure... but I would have to go through the same laborious process to propose that as well. :)
Joel wrote:
-snip-
"I don't recall any such process being used before the official statement of opposition to Justice Alito, for example- they used a derived authority from a previous GA vote on the general subject of social justice to do it.
Joel,
You probably don't like this, but the 2004 General Assembly delegates passed this language as part of the Civil Rights Statement of Conscience:
"We oppose nominees to the federal appeals courts or the Supreme Court whose records demonstrate insensitivity to the protection of civil liberties."
http://www.uua.org/actions/civil-liberties/04civil-liberties.html
I don't think this is a "derived authority" issue here. Delegates from our congregations authorized the the UUA Washington Office and UUA staff to lobby on our behalf at the 2004 General Assembly against certain judicial nominations.
The text of the 2004 Statement of Consience is pretty clear in terms of what it allows in lobbying. If we as an association of congregations didn't want to do this, this wouldn't have been included in the 2004 Statement of Conscience (which was reviewed in draft form in local congregations across the US before it was approved at the 2004 GA).
Then Joel wrote:
-snip-
"What I would like to see is a procedure for submitting such action requests that doesn't involve attending multiple GAs to get enough signatures- not all of can afford to do that."
Ideally, congregations would select their GA delegates and pay for their travel expenses (which is what many congregations do for minister and DRE travel to GA).
There's obviously some imperfections in funding delegate travel if we have to depend on congregational volunteers paying their own way. That being said, I doubt the GA votes would be significantly different in outcome if congregations funded GA delegate travel expenses.
Finally, Actions of Immediate Witness (AIWs) don't require attending multiple GAs to get signatures on the petition and inclusion on the GA business agenda.
AIWs are proposed at one GA through a petition process that requires 150 delegates representing 25 congregations and 5 districts in order to be placed on the agenda.
For an AIW to be approved, it must obtain at least a two-thirds approval of the GA delegates. Folks with more GA experience than me have said that the typical approval for AIWs is usually in the 85%-90% approval range.
The current GA social justice business process isn't perfect. There are several reforms that will probably be implemented in the current GA social justice business process real soon:
Final Report of the Social Witness Process Review Panel -- April 2004
http://www.uua.org/uuawo/new/downloads/swrp_finalreport.pdf
Proposed Model for UUA Social Witness Process
http://www.uua.org/TRUS/jan06/late-social_process.pdf
Recommendations for Proposed Bylaw Changes to the UUA Social Witness Process made to the UUA Board of Trustees, January 14, 2006
http://www.uua.org/TRUS/jan06/late-social_recommendations.pdf
I was aware of the vote you speak of, ""We oppose nominees to the federal appeals courts or the Supreme Court whose records demonstrate insensitivity to the protection of civil liberties." and do not concede that it constitutes a direct vote on Justice Alito- who was unknown in 2004. Nor do I, nor a majority of the Senate, concede that Justice Alito is insensitive to the protection of civil liberties. Unless you are claiming that the lack of definition of the terms was deliberate, that the GA meant to grant total carte blanche for the action committee to decide on any criteria they felt like at the moment. If they did indeed grant such sweeping power, then yes, it was a direct vote; if they did not mean that they were countersigning the whims of the committee in advance, then it was only a derived power.
Yes, I know the AIW doesn't require one to attend multiple GAs; I was merely being practical about the chances of meeting and convincing 150 people to sign during the breaks between sessions. Even with a slam-dunk petition that would be difficult. I remember the 88 Republican convention with a petition for Bush to pick Jeane Kirkpatrick for Vice President.
Joel wrote:
-snip-
" ... do not concede that it constitutes a direct vote on Justice Alito- who was unknown in 2004. Nor do I, nor a majority of the Senate, concede that Justice Alito is insensitive to the protection of civil liberties."
Joel,
I suspect that most members of the US Senate when polled would hold different views on political and social justice issues than most Unitarian Universalists.
Just look at issues like gay and lesbian rights, reproductive choice, same-sex marriage, drug policy reform, sex education, etc.
I suspect that most Unitarian Universalists are closer to what are commonly called "liberal" positions on these issues when compared to the US Senate.
I suspect that most Unitarian Universalists were oppossed to Alito's nomination as well and the UUA Washington Office staff fairly represented where the majority of our faith community was on this question.
Given that as a group we're more liberal than the US Senate as a group, I'm not surprised to see the difference between our faith community and the US Senate.
As a liberal member of a conservative UU congregation, I understand how you might feel troubled when folks in your faith community hold different political views than yours. It isn't very comfortable.
What about UUA opposing Grandparent Visitation Rights? This state law denies fit parents the right to choose whom their children may associate with. In Pennsylvania, grandparents may sue intact families (parents still married; never divorced). In Indiana and other states grandparents may sue only if the parents never married and paternity is proved, divorce or death of one of the parents. Indiana law even allows grandparents who have sexually abused the grandchild to continue to have their visitation, but it must be supervised.
If you want to get yourself and the church involved in something, look at protecting the families and especially the children.
Grandparent rights are good for the grandparents, but it takes a heavy emotional, physical and finanacial toll on the parents and more importantly the children involved in forced visitation.
Cahm - former UU member from Kokomo
Post a Comment